Inadequate Market Price Subtraction
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
14520_olive_wood_keepsake_crosses · CONTRACTS · Choice A$2 per cross, representing the difference between the cost of carving and the price the buyer agreed to pay.
Why it's attractive
The $2 is the profit, but the seller has already incurred $8 of cost; A leaves that cost on the table and so fails to make the seller whole.
Why it's wrong
The $2 is the profit, but the seller has already incurred $8 of cost; A leaves that cost on the table and so fails to make the seller whole.
14520_olive_wood_keepsake_crosses · CONTRACTS · Choice B$6 per cross, representing the difference between the cost of carving and the salvage price.
Why it's attractive
It looks like a clean salvage subtraction, but the § 2-708(2) formula is (profit + costs) − resale, not (costs − resale). The seller gets to add the lost profit on top.
Why it's wrong
It looks like a clean salvage subtraction, but the § 2-708(2) formula is (profit + costs) − resale, not (costs − resale). The seller gets to add the lost profit on top.
14520_olive_wood_keepsake_crosses · CONTRACTS · Choice CNominal damages, because Peter failed to resell the crosses by public auction.
Why it's attractive
It imports UCC 2-706's resale-procedure point (public, commercially reasonable sale) into a § 2-708(2) calculation. The governing formula does not require a public auction; it only requires a credit for the resale proceeds.
Why it's wrong
It imports UCC 2-706's resale-procedure point (public, commercially reasonable sale) into a § 2-708(2) calculation. The governing formula does not require a public auction; it only requires a credit for the resale proceeds.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →